@downey I didn't have time to attend today, so I missed this talk.
However, the point made is an important one, so I want to repeat this to others. In fact, one could argue that the foundation of open source is to not depend on a single platform. And definitely not a proprietary one.
@downey But why pick out Github as a problem in particular? With bitbucket on second place, this slide says that the vast majority of projects now depend on hosting backed by microsoft and atlassian.
Who have basically taken over a growing userbase from sourceforge, partly via google code.
Was there ever a point in time where most projects were self-hosting after sourceforge appeared?
There are only two options - self host or rely on centralized platform. History shows that self hosting is a #1 way to kill your project - when it's alive it's just disconnected from community, and when it's no longer active it just disappears from the net.
So there's no choice than to use centralized platform, and among these it's counter-productive to chose other than most popular one, so GH only.
If you don't like this, invest into federated code hosting development.
@AMDmi3 I call bullshit on that theory unless you can cite some sources. I've been looking for data to support that claim for years and nothing's ever been demonstrated to back it up.
That's merely a limitation of projects deliberately distancing themselves from community.
For your data point I've got mine, which is 12 year package maintainer experience, and that includes a lot of ex-self hosted (now dead and unreachable) projects, and a lot of patches not upstreamed because it's nonsense to spend time for registration on each self hosted derelict.
All pending, discussed and past contributions in one place on GH on other hand.